Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Craig Zastera
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems to me that partner has three s and 4+ s with probably a bit more than minimum strength.
So why not bid 3?
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also redid this simulation (5000 deals) with exactly the same constraints except that I changed the suit in leader's hand from :T932 to :T962.

A nice example of the sensitivity of large simulations to small changes, and also a caution about generalizing from the results of one simulation to a different situation which might seem almost the same:

When leader's s were T932 (3NT beatable on 1151 deals):
Lead IMPs Matchpoints
T 653 3541
2 658 3550

When leader's s were T962 (3NT beatable on 1166 deals)
Lead IMPs Matchpoints
T 672 3585
2 665 3556

So you can see that replacing 3 with the 6 is enough to push the honor lead (T) ahead of the low (2) lead.
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure I can agree with you, John.

Although the nautical usage you cite is referenced, I find numerous other references to “burthen” used as a synonym for “burden” in more generic situations:

1. Well, I suppose you are aware of this much:
corn is threshed by beasts of burthen ?
The Economist
Xenophon

2. You cannot help feeling that they are costly to you,
and they must see that you find them a burthen ?
The Memorabilia
Xenophon

3. Idle Richard is a burthen to himself,
and scorned by everybody.
The Bad Family and Other Stories
Mrs. Fenwick

4. Here tears relieved her from a part of that burthen,
which was before insupportable.
A Simple Story
Mrs. Inchbald

5. This is the burthen and message of the whole
passage (verses 11-18).
Messages from the Epistle to the Hebrews
Handley C.G. Moule
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
bur·then
/ˈbərT͟Hən
noun
archaic form of burden.
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 is acceptable but it suffers from several problems:

(a) although certainly not required, jump advances of
TO doubles tend to suggest a 5 card suit.
Here, not only is the suit only 4 cards in length,
but it is a particularly poor suit

(b) jump suit responses typically show 9-11
“advancer points.”
I count this hand as 13 APs as follows:
* 9 HCPs
* +1 for 5th
* +3 for stiff

© starting with a jump to 2 will make it difficult
if not impossible to indicate that you have another
suit that is both longer and much stronger than your
s.

All this is not to say that 2 won't work great, but it seems to me that it is likely to be better to start with a cue-bid to facilitate exploring alternative strains.
And I do not think a cue-bid start over-states the strength of this hand (in fact, it might even be a better strength statement than would a strictly limited 2 advance).
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did a larger (5000 deal) simulation.
3NT was beatable on 1151 deals.
Results:
Lead IMPs Matchpoints
ST: 653 3541
S2: 658 3550
HK: 501 2259
H6: 637 3036
DA: 643 2977
D2: 518 3070
C5: 607 3327
Oct. 27
Craig Zastera edited this comment Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't quite understand why this is just a “proposal” as it sounds pretty much like what the ACBL already does.
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very close.
I did a 1000 deal simulation.

This showed that a lead was the best matchpoint lead by a fair margin.

But very close between T vs. 2:
T was best on 729 deals
2 was best on 737 deals

Next closest lead was 5–best on 687 deals

I think a larger simulation would be needed to be confident of choice between T and 2.

At *IMPs*, same simulation showed best lead (for defeating 3NT which was possible on only 225 of the 1000 deals) to again be a . This time:
T succeeded on 142 deals
2 succeeded on 140 deals

So, again close between T and 2, but order reversed for purposes of defeating 3NT (but too close to call with only 1000 deal simulation).

Best non- lead for defeating 3NT was A. This is perhaps somewhat of an artifact of double-dummy analysis as A sometimes wins when it allows leader to shift to a different suit at trick 2.
Not that real-world defender can't shift also, but he likely won't find that (or the right suit to shift to) as often as the double-dummy defender does (:-)).

On this simulation, A could succeed on 128 deals.
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tough one.
I try 2.
Then 2 after partner's likely 2.
If I catch a raise, I pass (3 or 4).
If not, I will belatedly introduce my s.

Guaranteed to work out well?
Right.
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think it is my job to “master-mind” by bidding a 3 card suit (I'd certainly pick s) when I have 4 cards in an unbid suit.
Either major *might* be a 3=3 fit.
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Reason for my choice of pass here is fear of pushing them into a making (6).

If I thought we would be allowed to play the hand, I would definitely bid 6.
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hard to answer as I would not consider doubling (1).

Since partner is a PH and we have 8 losers (well 7.5 using NLTC), I would bet that passing 3 is %age action.

However, VUL at IMPs favors overbidding when a fit is found, so perhaps these conditions justify a 4 overbid.
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After 1-1-1:
A. 1: artificial, F1, denies 4+ s
Usually, some type of balanced hand lacking a stopper
(but of various strengths).
Opener should generally rebid NT with s stopped.
Responder will then usually Pass, raise to 2NT or
raise to 3NT depending on his strength.

B. 2: natural and GF with 4+ s and longer s.

C. 2-2-2:
natural and game invitational with 4 s and longer s

D. 3: auto-splinter. 0/1 s, long strong s, slammish

E. 2 (art. GF) then minimum rebid
Depends on what opener bid over 2 and details
of XYZ structure.
Often 1-1-1M-2 is bid by a responder with a
strong hand (slam interest) and both minors.
Opener's bids over such 2:
3M: natural with 5=6
2N: stopper in OM
3: 6 s (or very strong 5 s) and 4 in M
3: 4 card (or good 3 card) support for s
2M : default with none of above.
2M here does not show 5=6, although opener
might exceptionally bid this way planning
to continue with 3M to show a very minimal
5=6.
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe partner would not switch to the 3 from :QJ3 in your hypothetical deal.
Oct. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it is the “and anticipated” part which is really important.

It is pretty easy to understand what “balanced with 8-14 HCPs” means.
What may not be so easy is to be prepared with a reasonable defense against such an unexpectedly wide-ranging 1NT opening.
Oct. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think a lot of people nowadays play 2 overcall of 1NT as showing both majors.
They may not call it Landy, though, because that is so old-fashioned.
But I think 2=majors is part of “Woolsey” and perhaps other defenses too.
Oct. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, using double your way is actually what Larry Cohen suggests in his methods from which mine are derived.

But I've found having double as “negative”, wanting to compete in the minor of partner's choosing, comes up a lot and is not well handled otherwise.

Particularly at matchpoints (where frequency is more important even if it means giving up an occassional chance for a big penalty), I think the “negative” double interpretation is a winner.

Also, using “double” this way allows this treatment to be extended to the common “DONT” case where the opponents use 2 to show both majors.
Then, “double” is either competitive with both minors *or* GF with s (i.e. stolen bid in the latter case). Everything else remains the same (i.e. as it would be if the opponents were using 2 or 2 to show both majors).
Partner replies as if the double were negative with both minors, but if responder actually has a GF, he can clarify this easily by making a further descriptive bid.
Oct. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm comfortable with 1, then 1NT over 1 or 2 over 1.
Oct. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I may not “get” this problem as I can't think of a plausible alternative to 1 which would appeal to me under any conditions.

BTW, we don't play 2 as a WJS, but I wouldn't choose that call even if we did.
Oct. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I really don't “get” a question where you first ask “what is the meaning of double in your partnership”, but then you follow with some weird-ass definition for how you play 2M which renders the meaning of “double” in my partnerships moot.

FWIW, we use “double” as negative, suggesting support for both minors, usually with competitive but not GF values.

We use 2 as GF with s and 2 and GF with s (and 3/3 as invitational with the bid minor).
Oct. 25
.

Bottom Home Top